Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardCampaign Finance and Citizens United v. FEC

"Distinguishing between natural persons and corporations is not to 'discriminate' against a speaker on the basis of its identity... Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their collective action can perform many valuable functions. But corporations are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
— Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Which of the following statements best explains how the dissenting opinion's reasoning in the passage differs from the Court's majority holding in Citizens United v. FEC?

  1. A
    The dissent argues that corporate speech undermines popular sovereignty by directly altering voter qualifications, while the majority holds that the social contract requires granting corporations full citizenship rights.
  2. B
    The dissent contends that corporations should have the right to make unlimited direct contributions to candidate campaigns, while the majority restricts corporate spending to independent expenditures.
  3. The dissent asserts that the government may regulate corporate spending to protect the integrity of democratic self-governance, while the majority holds that independent corporate expenditures are protected forms of political expression under the First Amendment.Answer
  4. D
    The dissent supports a pluralist model of democracy by seeking to balance corporate influence with individual speech, while the majority supports an elite model of democracy by prioritizing corporate interests over those of citizens.

Answer

The dissent asserts that the government may regulate corporate spending to protect the integrity of democratic self-governance, while the majority holds that independent corporate expenditures are protected forms of political expression under the First Amendment.
The correct option is the one stating that the dissent asserts that the government may regulate corporate spending to protect self-governance, while the majority holds that independent corporate expenditures are protected forms of political expression. This aligns with Justice Stevens' argument that corporations are distinct from natural persons and lack the same constitutional status as citizens. The majority opinion, on the other hand, established that independent expenditures cannot be limited under the First Amendment simply because the speaker is a corporation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the provided stimulus to understand the dissenting argument.
Identify that Justice Stevens is arguing that corporations are not natural persons ('We the People') and that distinguishing between them is not constitutionally prohibited discrimination.
This helps establish the foundation of the dissenting opinion's constitutional reasoning regarding corporate identity and speech.
2
Recall the majority holding in Citizens United v. FEC.
The majority held that under the First Amendment, the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.
This allows for a comparison between the majority's view on corporate political speech and the dissent's view.
3
Compare the reasoning of both opinions to select the statement that accurately reflects their difference.
The dissent advocates for regulating corporate spending to preserve democratic self-governance, whereas the majority protects independent expenditures as free speech.
This directly answers the prompt by identifying the correct contrast between the two opinions.

Key Concept

Campaign Finance and Citizens United v. FEC
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Campaign Finance and Citizens United v. FEC

More questions from this topic